Excavation at Non Nok Tha,Northeastern Thailand, 1968

AN INTERIM REPORT

Received 1 October 1969

DONN T. BAYARD

INTRODUCTION

THE 1968 excavation at Non Nok Tha represents a continuation of the three-yearprogram of salvage archaeology in northeastern Thailand jointly sponsored by theFine Arts Department of the Thai Government and the University of Hawaii.

The site was located initially by Chester F. Gorman during the first season of the programin April 1964 while he was surveying the western end of the proposed Nam Ph9ng Reservoir(Solheim 1966: 13-15; Solheim and Gorman 1966: 164-79) (see Fig. 1). At this time thesite was designated Nam Phsmg 7. During the second year of the program, the site wasextensively tested by Ernestine Green in January 1965 (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966:77-81). Materials from the seven test squares dug at this time were so promising that fourmonths of the third and final season of the program (December 1965-April 1966) weredevoted to a large-scale area excavation byR. H. Parker, assisted byrne; as in the first twoyears of the program, Wilhelm G. Solheim II was general director. The preliminary reportof this 1966 excavation appears in Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966 (see also Solheim1968a: 40).

The 1968 excavation at Non Nok Tha (the local name for the site has since been adoptedin place ofNam Ph9ng 7) thus represents the fourth year ofarchaeological interest in the siteand the second season of intensive area excavation. Such extended interest in a single sitein an area still largely unexplored archaeologically may appear somewhat excessive; however,the results of the 1966 excavation raised so many interesting questions that a second areaexcavation at the same site seemed fully justified. The primary goals in this excavation weretwo: first, to locate a bronze-period occupation surface for comparison with the iron-periodoccupation levels excavated in 1966, with a view toward testing a possible adjustment inoccupational and presumably social structure resulting from the shift from slash-and-burnagriculture to paddy cultivation of rice; we suspect this shift took place during the gap

The author is Lecturer in Prehistory, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

110 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

II

I

")~,

'\\

,\. J--/1

BAN NADIaoo '"

//

,,II,,\

)I II /1---(;-_Jo 10 20

/ .'-....!!'!!'!!''!!l.~...METlIlS

'I, \

\, \',

~I,\\

\

NON NOK THA1 1965 TEST PITS 1-7

4& LARGE TREE WITH1966-61 DATUM "OINT

---. EDGE OF MOUND--- RICE FIELD DIKES~ WOOOEN RAIL FENCES,"'..... WillE FENCECIJ FIELD SHElTERS

SEASONAL STIIEAM

C RO PS:COTTONMULIE,UYJUTEPEPPEIt

BANANAS

IAMBOO

Fig. 1 Site map, Non Nok Tha.

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand III

between the bronze-period and iron-period occupations of the site. Second, we hoped toobtain further evidence in the form ofadditional carbon samples to test the sequence ofdatesfrom the 1966 excavation which seem to show the presence of a highly developed bronzetechnology prior to 2300 B.C. (Solheim 1968b).

Non Nok Tha means "Partridge Mound." The site is a low mound lying some 500 msouth of the village of Ban Na Di in northwestern Phu Wiang district in the western end ofKhon Kaen Province. It is located some 2.5 km north of the foot of the large, low sandstonemo~ntain after which the district is named, which rises some 500 m above the level of a flator gently rolling plain that extends north, east, and southeast to the Ph<;mg and Choen Rivers.This plain is largely paddy alternating with patches of scrub forest on the higher ground.The mound itself is located at lat. 16° 47' 57" N and long. 102° 18' 17" E (U.S. Army Mapcoordinates 48 QTD 2138-18592). Its approximate dimensions are 100 m north-south byISO m east-west. The surface of the mound lies between 80 and 150 em above the averagelevel of the surrounding rice paddies. These paddies appear to have been cut into themound; in many areas sherds are visible in the vertical edges of the mound. The generalelevation of the paddies seems to be from 190 to 195 m above sea level according to ArmyMap Service maps.

At present the mound is divided by lines of banana trees into four plots owned by fourfamilies ofBan Na Di, who use the land for the cultivation ofcotton, mulberry, jute, bananas,papayas, and red pepper. Three huts or field shelters are located on the mound, and a cow­dung threshing floor used during the harvest season lies between the northernmost of thesefield shelters and the area excavated in 1968 (see Fig. 1). The present pattern of use of themound, like the rice paddies surrounding it, is almost certainly no older than the presentvillage of Ban Na Di. According to one of the first settlers of Ban Na Di, the present Lao­speaking inhabitants of the village first came there in 1894 A.D. (112 Bangkok Era) from thelarge village of Ban Khok Na Fai some 4 km to the north. On their arrival, there were notraces of prior occupancy such as paddy dikes, cleared areas, houseposts and the like, so itseems safe to assume that the area had been uninhabited for at least several decades. How­ever, people in the village estimated that without maintenance, dikes would vanish afterabout ten years. It seems likely from linguistic evidence (Brown 1965: 98-113) that thewestern Khfi>D Kaen-Chaiyaphum-western Ud<;m area has been inhabited by a populationsimilar to the present inhabitants for at least two hundred years, even if the area immediatelyin the vicinity of Non Nok Tha was uninhabited during this time.

EXCAVATION

The 1968 excavation at Non Nok Tha was opened on February 11, following three weeksoforganization and assembling of equipment in Bangkok. I directed the excavation, with theassistance of Thawichai Uthaiwi of Maha Sarakham, Terry T. Marsh of Honolulu, andKhamporn Phithaksin and Buaphan Bunsom, both ofBan Na Di. During the month ofMay,the Fine Arts Department was represented in the field by Viraj Khunnamas of Unit No.7,Kht;m Kaen.

The area excavated lies some 18 to 40 m north and 0 to 20 m east of the 1966 excavation.The choice of this area was largely dictated by indications uncovered in 1966 that the occupa­tion areas of the bronze period lay to the north and east of that area (Solheim, Parker, andBayard 1966: 39). The "4" line of the 1966 grid was selected as a base line for the 1968 grid

.. ""'---,.

Fig. 2 Non Nok Tha 1968 excavation. Main north-south section (4 East). B, bone; C, burned clay; P, pot; S, sherd(s). Diagonally hatched areas are rootholes, termitenests, or wash-outs; solid black objects are large stones.

~.--.

I-lHN

~~.

~

~~~~

~....<:::~...o­...-H\Q-...:]o

Fig. 3 Non Nok Tha 1968 excavation. Main east-west section (F North). (Key as for Fig. 2.)

td

~::x:-?:1tj

Zo:::Zo~

;iJU

;i~

l=.:.~~

H1-1

<..N

114 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

, that extended to the northern edge of the mound. The datum point for both excavations Was"

,i identical: a large wild kapok tree to the southeast of the 1968 area. Four 4 m by 1 m trenches 1

. and a central 4 m by 4 m square were laid out to the west of the grid line, and an additionalp''\seven~4 m by 4 m squares were excavated to the east of this line. Excavation continued on

adaily basis with few interruptions aided by 24 workmen from Ban Na Di, many with three '. seasops' experience. The work became quite difficult as we entered the rainy season. Erosion~ofthe baulks necessitated trimming them 10 cm to 15 cm before drawing sections. Fortunately, the weather cleared in early May, allowing completion of the excavation with removal of allbaulks and the drawing ofall sections except the western sides of the 4-line trenches (whichclosely duplicated the eastern sides). The excavation was finished and fill-in was begun onMay 28 (see PI. Ia and b).

During 78 days of excavating we removed an average of 140 cm of cultural deposit overan area of 189.5 m2 (the northern 1.5 m of trench 4H was not excavated because of thepresence of a large ground termite nest); thus, the 1968 excavation was slightly larger thanthe 150 m2 excavated in 1966. In addition, the narrow 4-line trenches and a strip 1 m widealong the north side of the F squares (see Fig. 1) were further excavated to at least 210 cmbelow the surface to insure that natural soil had indeed been reached in all areas (see Figs.2 and 3).

In removal of both squares and baulks, excavation proceeded in all cases according to thenatural stratigraphy of the site; in the case oflayers thicker than 10 to 15 cm, spits of 10 cmwere used to remove the layer. In a few cases, as with the thick layers 5 and 6 and in baulkremoval, spits of 15 cm were removed. .AB the surface ofeach layer was reached, all detectable

, disturbances (pits, postholes, graves, etc.) were cleared, or at least carefully defined (in thecase of deep burials), prior to beginning removal of the layer.

The 1968 excavation produced some 140 artifacts of stone, clay, bone, bronze, and iron,well over 400 whole or restdrable pots, and a total of 115 burials from the neolithic and bronzeperiods. Ofthis total number of burials, no skeleton was located in 20 cases, the burial beingrepresented by pits in section or grave goods in pits largely outside the excavation area. Ofthe remaining 95 burials, 14 were either fragmentary or mostly outside our area; thussubstantial portions of 81 burials were lifted, with 34 of these being more or less completeand undisturbed by later burials and pits. Large amounts of sherds, faunal remains, soilsamples, and many small carbon samples (some too small for accurate dating at present) werealso recovered. Human skeletal material is currently being examined by S. Brooks of Nevada

,_ Southern University; faunal remains from both excavations are being analyzed by C. F. W.Higham of the University of Otago. C. Smith of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I is examining some of the bronze from the 1966 excavation.

A NOTE ON METHODS

The primary difficulties encountered in the 1966 excavation at Non Nok Tha were three:"(a) the linguistic problem ofexplaining to the labor force exactly what was required; (b) thedifficulty ofobtaining suitable tools; and (c) the character of the soils" (Solheim, Parker, andBayard 1966: 6). During the 1968 season the first and last of these areas of difficulty sawimprovement. The excavation was conducted almost wholly in Thai, and by this time anadequate and relatively precise vocabulary ofarchaeological terms in Thai had been evolved.In addition, the workmen were by that time quite well versed in the general prehistoric

BAYARD: NonNok Tha, Thailand 115

sequence at Non Nok Tha, and as a result were conscious of the significance of what theywere uncovering. Moreover, by good fortune the soils of the 1968 area proved considerablyinore amenable to stratigraphic interpretation than those of the 1966 area; this was par­ticularly true of the northern and eastern portions of the 1968 area.

AB in 1966, tools continued to be a problem; the extreme hardness of the clayey soils ofthe area preclude the use of locally available trowels and shovels for all but delicate tasks.Since the 1968 excavation was being conducted on a more limited budget than the 1966 onehad been, importation of large quantities of high-quality tools was impossible. Thus, as inthe first season's work, primary reliance was placed on local tools, principally the broad,flat-bladed hoe for gross removal of layers, and shovels and baskets for dirt removal. In­evitably, some amount of damage to pots and skeletal material was incurred under this sys­tem, but the workmen rarely removed more than 5 cm of the advancing face at a stroke, andin most cases would stop using the hoe at once on encountering something and switch totools more suitable for fine work. These consisted of a small number of high-quality trowelsfrom New Zealand, which effectively withstood the rigors of the hard-baked soils, and a largenumber of locally purchased, inexpensive knives, which did not. These tools were also usedin clearing disturbances and defining the irregularities oflayer surfaces as well as in preparingburials and other features for photography.

AB in 1966, screening of deposits proved impossible; only with great difficulty can thesesoils be broken into particles smaller than I cm, and hydraulic sifting was even less feasible,as not only do the soils soften slowly, but the nearest supply of water lay some 150 m fromthe site and was needed for more important purposes (the area had suffered a two-yeardrought). It was apparent from viewing our spoil heaps that many small sherds were beinglost by this lack of screening; however, the vast majority of sherds larger than 2 cm wererecovered, along with fragments of metal less than 0.5 cm in diameter.

Although the methods used imposed limitations, I feel that we were able to follow strati­graphical distinctions with a high measure of success, considering the difficult soils of thisregion. I feel confident that owing both to our increased experience and to the sandier, moreeasily readable soils in the 1968 area, we were able to detect and follow down well over halfof the disturbances present. However, I am also certain that a fair number of disturbanceswent undetected, perhaps about 30 percent; this is particularly true of .the top two soils,where large pits, or indeed any disturbance larger than a large posthole, proved very hard todefine.

STRATIGRAPHY

AI> mentioned earlier, the soils ofthis region are very difficult to interpret stratigraphically;the effects of cultural modification that are so often easy to observe in temperate or tropicalvolcanic soils are here submerged in the general soil profile, and considerable experience inlooking at and handling the soil is required until the modifications produced by humanactivity begin to become apparent to the eye and trowel. The soils in the Phu Wiang areafall under the general descriptive name of Khorat Fine Sandy Loams (Pendleton andMontrakun 1960: 26-28). In the Ban Na Di area there seem to be two principal subtypesof this soil category, aside from the artificially modified soil of the rice fields: a reddish,sandy loam found in lower areas, and a more whitish, notably more clayey sandy loam found

116 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

in raised places. The soil at Non Nok Tha falls into the latter category. Both subtypes seemto have a horizon oflaterite nodules occurring in the subsoil at a depth ofabout 50-100 em

, in culturally unmodified areas, as judged from what few observations we could make. This'~"again'~is characteristic of Khorat Fine Sandy Loams in general (Pendleton and Montrakun

1%0:27).1'.. R~cordinga section at Non Nok Tha is usually a rather lengthy process. Some distinctions .,_are r~latively clear in a fresh-cut face, but vanish in a few hours' drying time; other dis-,l. Unctions become visible only after a day's drying. Within a week after exposure, however"I"

when the entire section dries to an almost uniform yellow-brownish gray, only the most~triking differences between layers remain visible; for example, those between Soil II and J

III, and IV and V. (There was unfortunately no chance to obtain a Munsell chart prior to :'1

departure for the field; hence color terms as applied to moist soil in the field are necessarilysubjective. Munsell descriptions of each layer were made later in the laboratory by MaryNelson, using dry soil samples.) In addition, the high clay content of the soil results in asection drying to extreme hardness, so that only the lower soils can be distinguished by feel.Light conditions also proved important in interpretation. In general, sections were clearest I

Iunder diffuse light or early morning and late afternoon sunlight; midday sun, open shade, l

shadow and heavy overcast all made interpretation extremely difficult. All these factors 1tended to make section-drawing depend on subjective interpretation of the actual situationeven more than it normally does; this was particularly true of sectioned disturbances.Nonetheless, matching up of separate sections as the baulks were removed proved to be aneasy task; in a few cases layer distinctions were wrongly labelled, but the distinctions asobserved seemed in almost all cases to match up with distinctions in adjoining parts of thesection, although sections were drawn as much as six weeks apart.

As in 1966, five fairly distinct soils within the general profile were distinguished in 1968;ho.wever, as ~he s~ils of the two areas differ more than would be expected, the two sets of .'~

sOlls are notIdentIcal.·Soil I (layers 1-5; see Figs. 2 and 3) is a gray podzolic clayey loam containing considerablej

amounts of fine sand; it is hard, compact, and very lumpy from intensive root and insect ':~penetration. Layer 5, which makes up the bottom 30 cm of this soil, is more brownish than ~/

the upper 20 cm (layers 1-4). This soil seems quite firmly equivalent to both Soil I and SoilII in the 1966 area (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: IS), but no fossil soil zone equivalentto 1966 Layer 7 was encountered in the present area. The water-deposited layers present on

" the western portion of the 1966 area are also absent here, with the probable exception ofLayer 3 (see below).

Soil II (Layer 6) is a brown, clayey loam containing somewhat less sand than Soil I; likethe latter, it is hard, compact, and root-broken. This soil is equivalent to Soil III in the1966 scheme, and like it, gives a clear abrupt contrast when reached horizontally, but is verydifficult to detect in vertical sections. In the 1968 area this soil has been truncated by erosion,particularly on the eastern part of the site. Its average thickness is about 25 cm, with con­siderable variation.

Soil III (layers 7 and 8) is a markedly softer sandy loam, with a fossil humus zone presentat the II-III interface. At this interface Soil III is brownish gray with mottlings of Soil IIpenetrating into it, probably due to worm action. Soil III proper is brownish yellow on thesouthern part of the site, and brownish red on the northern third of the area; the averagedepth of this soil is about 20 cm, but like Soil II, the thickness is quite variable.

,.'

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 117

Soil IV (layers 9 and 10) is a modified version of the natural soil which forms the base ofthe mound. It is considerably harder than Soil III and contains more clay, as well as manysmall lumps of laterite in its lower portions. This soil varies from a moderately hard, ratherloose reddish sandy clay on the northern part of the site to a very hard, compact whitish oryellowish clay with little sand and many dark brown or blackish laterite nodules over thesouthern two-thirds of the area. Once again, thickness is variable, ranging from 10 to 30 cm.Both Soil III and Soil IV seem to be derived primarily from weathering of the natural soil(probably aided by extensive gravedigging) rather than from human occupation as in Soil I,or from more extensive vegetation cover than exists at present; such cover is probablyresponsible for part of the formation of Soil II. Soil III and Soil IV together seem to beequivalent to 1966 Soil IV, but differ from the latter in their sandier texture and the greaterrelative ease with which the layers comprising them may be distinguished.

Soil V (layers 11 and 12) is the unmodified natural soil and seems essentially identical to1966 Soil V. It is a moderately hard and lumpy clay interspersed with many laterite nodules,becoming even harder some 20 cm or more below its surface and continuing down to theexcavation limit of the two deep trenches dug along the 4 and F lines (the sections portrayedin Figs. 2 and 3) at an absolute depth of 210 to 240 cm.

Within the above five soil divisions, twelve occupational or weathering layers or bothwere distinguished, extending over all or a significant part of the site (see Fig. 4). Theseare as follows:

1. A quite thin, loose, crumbly layer made up of humus and plant debris derived from thecotton and mulberry plants under cultivation prior to excavation. It is medium gray incolor (East: 10 YR 4/2; West: 7.5 YR 4/2) and varies in thickness from 0 to not more than2 cm except where it fills old planting holes.

2. The compact lighter gray humus underlying Layer 1 (color as for Layer 1). Like Layer1, this layer is thoroughly mixed by yearly plowing of the garden to a depth of some 10 cm.Depth of the layer is from 3 to 6 cm; it contains some small amount of plowed-up sherdsand little else.

3. This layer is more compact and sandier than 2 and is a dark brownish gray in color(E: 10 YR 4/2; W: 7.5 YR 4/2); this dark color is retained on drying, unlike Layer 2.Layer 3 is variable in thickness, ranging from 3 to 15 cm. In the lower portions of the siteat present (squares OF, IF, IE, and 4H), this layer contains many small, evenly worn sherdsthat may have been water-deposited, perhaps deriving from layers similar or identical to 1966layers 2 through 6 to the south. No clear break in this layer exists between the lower andhigher parts of the site; hence, it is treated as a single layer, although it is unlikely that thethick portions of the layer in squares 4F and 3F (which contain very few sherds) were water­deposited. No structural features aside from two or three possibly associated pits were foundin this layer, perhaps owing to the fact that in places it lies in the bottom of the plow zone.

4. This layer is very similar to Layer 3, but somewhat more brownish and noticeablylighter on drying (E: 10 YR 5/1; W: 7.5 YR 4/2); it is also distinguished by many small redand yellow flecks of burned earth, larger pieces of yellowish burned earth, and many smallpieces of charcoal. The 3/4 interface is marked by many sherds, pieces of animal bone, andsome fairly heavy concentrations of charcoal. This layer varies in thickness from about 5 cmin southern 4D to about 15 cm in the lower areas of the site such as 4H and OF; the averagethickness is about 10 cm. A large number of sherds and many postholes and other featureswere encountered in this layer, as were many large rootholes on its surface.

118 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

;':>.~~\~~

-:

Soll

I

La er

1

2

Level

XIV

XIII

Level

XI

X?

La er

I, 2

Soil

I

PREDOMINANTTOOL

MATERIAL

I

,IX? 44-6 X-XII ?:"~-----------1

I----+-....:....-=----.:.:.....:='-----l/ VIII 5 R

upper 21, Ia t "III upper 8

l-e_ s -1?">------------1II lower 8

upper 21, IfI"west

II

III

IV

7, 89

10

11

12

I)

14

17-18

18

19

20

lower 21,

22

IX

VIII

VII

"IV-V"

IV

III

II

I

IV

I

7

9

10

III

IV

°N

B

R

o

N

sz

TE

o

N

E

JOPPER

'11:1.1

! -

11-12 V

Fig.4 A tentative correlation of 1966 and 1968 sequences at Non Nok Tha, showing material predominantin tool manufacture.

5. A lighter brown layer somewhat more sandy and less lumpy than Layer 4, but alsocontaining many red and yellow flecks (E: 10 YR 5/2; W: 7.5 YR 4/2). The layer variesfrom 15 to 40 cm in thickness, with many sherds and structural features present, probablyrepresenting a long period of frequent if not continuous occupation. Two particularly densezones of occupation seem to be present at or near the surface of the layer and about two­

thirds of the way down in the layer. However, neither of these zones seems to form clearliving surfaces.

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 119

6. A dink, almost chocolate brown layer containing notably less sand and more clay thanthe layers abov~ (E: 10 YR 6/2; W: 7.5 YR 4/2); on drying, this layer is even harder andlUJIipier than those above it. Three distinct cultural horizons seem to be present in this layer:the posthole butts and burials which derive from the eroded portion of the layer, referred tobelow as Level VII; features and burials derived from an occupation surface on or very closeto the present top of Layer 6 (Level VI); and a few postholes and numerous burials derivedfrom a cemetery level some 15 to 20 cm below the present surface of the layer (Level V).This last horizon is marked in places by discontinuous lenses of sherds. The layer as awhole averages from 15 to 40 cm in thickness, but is thinnest on the eastern part of the site,where erosion has been more marked.

7. This layer contains much more sand and much less clay than the above layers; it isalso markedly looser in texture. The 6/7 interface is marked by the fossil soil zone mentionedabove, whose thickness averages about 5 cm. Below this grayish brown mottled zone,Layer 7 ranges in color from a brown tinged with gray and yellow in the southwestern partof the site (Soil Zone C; see below) to a grayish yellow, more clayey version (E: 10 YR 6/2)containing large amounts of snail shells on the east (Zone B) and a reddish brown version(W: 7.5 YR 7/2), again sandy, on the northwestern quadrant of the site (Zone A). Thicknessvaries from 5 to 30 cm, averaging about 15 cm, but it is greater to the east. Many burialsoriginate from this layer, but little in the way of structural features and occupational refusewas recovered.

8. Somewhat lighter in color and more compact than Layer 7, Layer 8 varies in color andsand content in a similar fashion (E: 10 YR 6/2; W: 5 YR 6/2). This layer varies sharply inthickness; it averages 10 cm on the west and about 20 cm on the east. It appears to havebeen truncated by erosion on the eastern and extreme western parts of the site, although itremains thickest in the east, where it was apparently deposited over several low points inthe Layer 9 surface. In this area Layer 8 also contains a fair amount of snail shells, but lessthan Layer 7. In both cases the presence ofshell seems to be associated with the lower regionsof the site during and after the formation of these layers. Aside from the burials associatedwith this layer (which are attributed to two cultural levels on typology alone, since no divisionof the layer is evident), only a few stray sherds were recovered, although a greater number ofstructural features were found than in Layer 7. Layer 8A, a more clayey version of 8,extends over part of square IE below 8; this sublayer is about 15 cm thick.

9. The color and sand-to-clay ratios of this layer vary as with Layers 7 and 8; however,Layer 9 is always harder, somewhat lighter in color (E: 7.5 YR 6/2; W: 7.5 YR 5/4), andmore like the natural soil than Layer 8, which allows relatively easy detection of 8 burialpits. Thickness varies from about 10 to 25 em. Layer 9A, a very hard whitish yellow layer,lies between layers 9 and 11 in squares 4D, 4E, and 3E; it averages about 20. em, but thickensto 4{) in places. Layer 9B (E: 7.5 YR 6/2), a stickier, grayer version of 9, lies under 9 insquare OF; two additional lenses (9C and 9D-see Fig. 3) under the western end of 9B mayrepresent a stream bed cut into Layer 11. Aside from the Level I burials derived from thislayer and a few postholes, Layer 9 is almost sterile; the sublayers are sterile.

10. This isa fairly hard, red, lumpy layer (W: 7.5 YR 5/4) contrasting with Layer 9above and Layer 11 below; it extends north from northern 3F and 4F. This layer does notappear to be of any more cultural significance than the sublayers of 9 described above;however, as it covers a fairly large portion of the site and was assigned a distinct numberearly in the excavation, it proved more convenient to retain it. Like Layer 9, this layer

120 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970 ,--,

contains a slight amount of small brownish black laterite nodules; like the Layer 9 sublayers,it is also sterile. Its thickness averages about 25 em.

11. This is the top 20 to 60 cm of the natural soil; it is clayey, lumpy, and moderately, har4, and contains many laterite nodules. It varies from reddish to yellowish brown in color

depending on the area of the site in which it occurs (E: 7.5 YR 5/4; W: 5YR 6/3), as withlaye,rs 7, 8, and 9.

12. This is a harder, more reddish version of the natural (E: 7.5 YR 6/2;W: 5 YR 6/3);- .~ - its color when moist is affected very little if at all by the soil zones discussed below. It

extends at least 30 cm below the bottom of Layer 11 over the entire site; like Layer 11, it: contains large quantities of laterite nodules. :~

-Late in the excavation, as we penetrated into Soil III in all squares, it began to be apparent '1that a sort of "vertical stratigraphy" was present at the site, as indicated by color, sand versus"clay content of soils III and IV, and the relative ease of stratigraphic interpretation ofthesesoils and Soil II. The 1968 area can be divided into three zones based on these criteria:

Zone A spreads over 4H, 4G, and the extreme northern margins of4F and 3F; an isolatedpocket of similar soils also occurs in IE, extending over all but the southwest corner of thesquare. Within this zone, Soil III and Soil IV are soft, sandy, and generally reddish in color,and the sections are relatively easy to interpret.

Zone _B occupies the remainder of 4F and 3F, except for the southeast and southwestcorners of these squares respectively, as well as all of 2F, IF, and OF, plus the eastern third0£2E. Within this zone, soils II and IV become more yellowish and clayey, although theyare sti~softer than these soils in Zone C; this condition is probably caused by higher mois­tur~. content. In addition, soils I and II in this zone become harder and more insect- 'Ipenetrated (mainly by ants and termites); since the number of insects encountered in this -1

-'j

zone did not seem to exceed that met within Zone A, I assume the effects oftheir worktend.d:,

to last longer in the harder _soils. In any event, interpretation of sections becomes a more :l-,difficulttask.')

Zone C, which extends over the remainder of the 1968 area (i.e., the southwest quadrant);"is even worse from an archaeological point of view. Here soils III and IV are even more ,~!clayey and much harder and more compact than in Zone B; insect and root disturbance is ~

even more marked. Soil conditions in general and the difficulty of reading sections approach ~

the extremely refractory soils to the south in the' 1966 area, which would seem to be i\wholly within Zone e with the exception of e7, D7, and western D6 and E6 (probably 1

'. in ZoneB)~ ~At present I am uncertain as to the significance of these zones and the factors involved in I

their formation. One possibility which suggests itself is that these soil differences representareas.of different age within the mound, Zone A being relatively more recent than B or G(perhaps dating from the time of deposition of Layer 10 in the northwestern quadrantof thearea). These distinctions may also relate to differences in drainage, permeability, or therelative proximity of the top of the water table. Judging from the pit left by our 1966excavation, which is quite dry, although well below the level of the surrounding rice paddies,Zone e and probably Zone B are quite impermeable. From the evidence ofcolor variabilityin Layer 11 and the distribution of Layer 10, it would seem that these distinctions developedprior to human occupation of the mound in the Layer 9 (Level I) period; nonetheless, theymay well have had some effect on the human utilization of the mound. For example, LevelIII (upper Layer 8) burials are largely confined to Zone e, while Level IV (Layer 7) burials

,i.J_.

J.,i

BAYARD: NonNok Tha, Thailand 121

with two or perhaps three marginal exceptions are located completely outside this zone.Moreover, these zones are significant and should be noted as far as the accuracy of strati­graphic interpretation is concerned. They may be one indication of the formation processesof mounds of this sort, thus suggesting useful clues to interpreting a site where suchprocesses, rather than preceding the cultural sequence, might be incorporated into it.

CHANGES IN SHAPE OF THE MOUND THROUGH TIME

Since it seems obvious that changes in the contour of the site may well have affected itschanging pattern of human use during the long time span of occupation, contour maps ofthe surface of each of the major layers were prepared from the section drawings, using anarbitrary base 100 em below the datum zero already established for the surface measurements.The results seem to indicate that several interesting changes have taken place since pre-:­occupation times, although several features have persisted almost unchanged.

If the soil zones mentioned above are any guide, the high ground in the west central andsouthwest areas of the 1968 excavation is the oldest part of the site; the pattern of drainageto the southeast and. northwest seems equally old, although a. deep gully was present insquare 2£ through the early history of the area, filling only during Layer 7 and. Layer 6times. An even deeper depression, possibly an old stream bed, touches the northeast cornerof square IF, but extends only a short distance into theexcavated area ; this was filled priorto the deposition of Layer 9. In Layer 8 times, drainage begins to shift to the north and east,a pattern which continued during the deposition of subsequent layers (and the easHo-westerosion ofLayer 6) and the gradual levelling out of the area, until by the Layer 5 period thearea had assumed essentially modern contours.

When the foregoing changes are correlated with those observed in 1966 (Solheim, Parker,and Bayard 1966: 43-45), it seems apparent that during most of the period encompassingthe formation of Layers 9 through 7 (levels 1-IV or 1966 levels I and III) the mound, as itappears today, was divided into at least two and probably more small areasofhigher groundseparated by shallow, almost certainly intermittent watercourses. With respect to the areasalreadyexcavated, these high regions would seem to be (a) the eastern half ofthe 1966 area;(b) the 1968 area and land to the north of it; and (c) quite likely the western half of the 1966area, which may well have been isolated from both of the other areas by a continuation ofthe gully to the south of the 1968 area or by a westward~draining gully meeting the firstgully in the vicinity of square 4£.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL LEVELS

Layers 1 through 9 as described above may be divided into eleven more or less discretearchaeological levels; two of these levels are apparently premetal (I, II), five are bronze­period (III-VII), and the remaining four are iron-period (VIII-XI). With the exception ofLevel VI, all premetal and bronze-period levels are represented mainly by burials anddebris from burials rather than by occupational refuse and extensive structural features. Wesuspect that the main occupation area associated with these cemetery levels lay about 500 to1,000 m north of Non Nok Tha, to the west of the modern village of Ban Na Di. This site,called D~m Kha, seems to extend over an area ofsome 300 by 500 m and would undoubtedly

122 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

yield much valuable data, given the three or four seasons which would be hecessary toexc~vate a significant portion of it. There are several other likely occupation sites in the

.'" viciiuty as well, such as Nam Ph9ng 6 and Nam Ph9ng 8, which were located at the same(~'-;Z timt as Non Nok Tha (Solheim and Gorman 1966: 175-178).

" The following brief description of the eleven levels encountered in the 1968 excavation is: ,,', ba:~ed primarily on burial typology, structural features, and subjective impressions of. ~ changes in pottery styles, faunal remains, and artifacts formed as they were being recovered. . ' in the field; additional information was also recovered by superposition of plans showing

burials and structural features from each level over the contour plan of the associated layer.:. It should be remembered, of course, that analysis of the bulk of the material recovered from 1

the 1968 excavation has yet to be completed; thus the conclusions presented below are quite .tentative and may well be modified once analysis is completely finished. I

Level I. During this earliest of the levels encountered in the 1968 excavation, most of Ithe area was used as a cemetery; some 18 burial pits were found in the region east of squares2F and lE. Most (10) of the burials were of children, but remains of 3 adults and 1 adoles- J

cent were also present. (The remaining 4 pits were largely out of the excavation area.) Theburials of this period have the following distinctive features: deep burial pits ranging from40 to 90 cm, medium to large round-bottomed, cord-marked pots placed beyond head andfeet, and in the more ornately furnished children's graves frequent offerings of whole orpartial dogs, pigs, small deer, and one as yet unidentified carnivore or omnivore (PI. IIa).Also common in the children's graves were strings of shell beads consisting of many smalldisks of about 5 mm in diameter worn" about the pelvis and small stone adzes having a low­profile rectangular or trapezoidal cross section similar to those found in the lower layers(17-21) of the 1966 excavation. Four of the large, elaborately incised pots that were describedas characteristic of this level in 1966 (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 24; Solheim 1967b:901) were recovered irithe later excavation; as in 1966, they were far rarer than vesselsdecorated solely with cord-marking. As is the case with the following three levels, orientationdoes not seem to be significant, although Level I child burials tend to be oriented with headto the southeast or south, while the few adult burials are mainly oriented to the northwest.In contrast to the burials of 1966 Level I, only 3 possible burial mounds over the grave pitswere located in 1968, and these were by no means as elaborate as those found in the firstyear's excavation. Structural evidence from this level was limited to a single possiblerectangular building on the eastern part of the area (IF and OF) outside the burial zone; its

'. dimensions appear to have been about 6 m by 3 m, with the long axis running NW by SE.Level II. Like Level I, no metal whatsoever was recovered from this level; small stone

adzes are even more common in burials of this period than in Level I. During this period theentire area excavated was apparently used solely as a cemetery, with child burials located onthe eastern portion of the site (8, including 2 doubtful) and adults buried on the western side(6, including 2 doubtful); a single child burial with notably more ornate furnishings wasfound in the adult area in square 4F. Graves of this level were very shallow, rarely extendingmore than 40 cm below the present surface of Layer 8; it would seem that in addition to theerosion of this layer which took place in post-Level III times the graves originally wereconsiderably more shallow than those of levels I and III. Furnishings included the adzesmentioned previously, which were invariably found in the graves of children and frequentlyoccurred in adult burials as well. The finely-made incised pots of Level I are absent, as isthe wide variety oflarge undecorated cord-marked pots (40-60 cm diameter); however, ring

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 123feet first make their appearance on small cord-:marked pots (10-20 cm diameter) in thislevel. Animal offerings and strings of shell beads continue from Level I into this level, but.are rarer. As in Level I, the more ornate graves feature sherd sheets formed by smashing alarge cord-marked pot over the body (as in PI. I1a), or, in the one clear-cut case of a moundover the grave found in this level, on the base of the mound itself. Two other low moundswithout furniture appeared to be present over shallow child burials, but these seem to havebeen protective rather than ceremonial. This custom was reminiscent of the shallow childburials in Layer 21 burial mounds that we encountered in 1966; however, by probing beneathboth of the 1968 mounds, we failed to uncover an adult burial below.

The only possible structural features that may be associated with this level more likelyoriginated from Level III and are better discussed there.

Level III. Burials of this level were limited to the mid-southwestern portion of theexcavation area (squares 4F, 4E, 3E, and 2E); in contrast to the earlier levels, adult burialsare more common than those of children (5 adults, 2 children, 2 empty pits). Burial moundsare absent, although in one case offerings were placed in the fill of the grave. The graves aremarkedly deeper than Level II, averaging 60 cm. Offerings in general are simpler, withsomewhat cruder cord-marked pottery prevailing; occasionally, as in Level II, these potsare decorated with two or three wavy lines incised over the cord-marked shoulder. Ringfeet continue to be fairly rare. The most distinctive feature of Level III burials is the markeddegree of disarticulation of the skeleton; while the bones of the body are in a more or lesscorrect position, many of them were obviously not articulated at the time of burial, thusgiving the impression that the body was allowed to partially decompose prior to finalburial (see PI. lIb). In one burial, the bones appeared to have been somewhat burned, asif the body had been partly cremated. As with Level II, orientation of the burials does notseem to have been significant; although a majority are oriented to the northwest, others arealigned to the southwest or southeast.

Possibly the most surprising result of the 1968 excavation was the discovery that limitedquantities of metal apparently first appeared during this period. Since Level III seems tocorrelate quite closely with 1966 upper Layer 21 (Level I), which was presumed to be pre­metal at the time, this discovery would seem to make a reconsideration of the development ofmetallurgy in the entire region necessary. The major metal find from this level is a socketedaxe or digging stick tip quite different in form from the axes found in 1966 levels II and IIIand 1968 levels IV-VII (see PI. IlIa). A qualitative analysis by the Thai Department ofMineral Resources (Phuangsin n.d.) indicates that the metal is basically copper containingsmall amounts of aluminum, iron, and phosphorus, as well as traces of arsenic and mercury.At present it is uncertain whether the tool was cast or whether it was beaten around a form;there are, however, clear evidences of cold-working on the bit end of the tool. The patina ofthe object is a brilliant green and quite different from the soft bluish green of the later bronzeimplements.

The only other metal found relating to this level (two small fragments in an empty burialpit) features the same brilliant green patina. The burial in which the tool was found could befirmly assigned to Level III, in terms of both stratigraphy and typology; the burial was thatof an old adult and featured extensive furniture in addition to the tool, indicating a personof some importance (PI. lIb). When coupled with the complete absence of metal in thetypologically very similar graves excavated in 1966, it would seem to be that metal wasstill quite rare at this time. As there are no evidences of metalworking present in this level,

124 Asian Perspectives, xm, 1970

the tool may well be an importation. The implications of this find will be discussedbelow.

Evidences of two possible large structures were recovered from this level-one of them:- .. possibly superimposed over a smaller building. & mentioned earlier, there is a slight chance

tfies.e may be derived from Level II, but this seems unlikely. The first structure is located in ''- the~stern portion of the area (squares IF, IE, and OF) and measures at least 8 m by 7 m,

. ~ with the long axis aligned WSW by ENE; this structure may in fact be larger and oriented. 'NNW by SSE, in which case the dimensions would be 12 m by 8 m. Posthole spacings seem

to average about 2.5 m. The second possible building is located to the west in 4G, 4F, 3F,~E, and 3E; it is quite similar to the larger version of the first in size and orientation. Asmaller (7 m by 5 m or 5 m by 5 m) building may have existed in the same location at aslightly earlier or later date; however, its presence is quite doubtful. Most of the burials ofthis level appear to be located between the two larger structures, although three are in factunderneath the western one.

Level IV. Use of the area as a cemetery continued during the formation of Layer 7 andspread to encompass a wider region of the site than in any previous level. This level is alsodistinguished by the variety in the types of burials and funerary features present. The 18burials (3 tentative) and 10 mounds lacking burials (2 tentative) that are assigned to thislevel may be divided into four types, each more or less localized. In the northwestern quadrantof the area are located 6 more or less elaborately furnished burials featuring deep grave pits(averaging 65 cm) and mounds with offerings of pots and animal bones above them; 2strings of shell disk beads were found around the waist of one of these skeletons. Locatedfrom northwest to southeast across the central portion of the site (3F to IE) are 5 and pos­sibly 6 quite shallow secondary burials with long bones, ribs, and pelvis arranged in more orless orderly fashion below the skull and accompanied by animal bones, many pots (somedeliberately smashed), and in two cases an extra human skull. These seemed reminiscent ofthe elaborate mounds with frequent evidence of human sacrifice that were encountered inlevels I and II of the 1966 excavation; however, test digging under the 1968 burials failedto turn up any trace of a primary burial below. To the east of these secondary burials thereare 4 simply furnished extended burials lacking mounds; 2 of these are only tentativelyascribed to Level IV, however. Finally, 5 or 6 medium to large mounds containing pots,sherd sheets, and animal bones are located on the eastern margins of the excavation area(IF, OF, and IE). Again, probing below these mounds, we failed to locate any associated

'. burials. These groups of offerings seem somewhat parallel to the "votive deposits"encountered in the Malayan neolithic site of Gua Cha (Sieveking 1955: 89-90).The southwestern portion of the site was lacking in Level IV features except forone elaborately furnished burial and a small "votive deposit" tentatively assigned to thislevel.

During this period bronze was apparently more available than in Level III times, andevidence that casting if not smelting of bronze was taking place in the immediate vicinity isafforded by the two pairs of sandstone axe molds found in this level. One of these wasdesigned to cast a small, socketed axe with straight cutting edge unlike any yet encounteredat the site; the second pair of molds were found with an axe possibly cast in them and are ofa type similar to two recovered from Layer 20 in 1966 (Solheim 1967a: 88, PI. I). However,finds of stone adzes in this level and levels V-VII above it seem to indicate a continuingalthough lesser dependence on stone tools.

BAYARD: NonNok Tha, Thailand 125The burial pottery of this level is quite distinct, although it is certainly related to the

pottery of the earlier levels. Large round-bottomed cord-marked vessels are still common,but almost always feature carefully smoothed shoulders. The most notable change in pottery,however, is the first appearance in this level of the footed funerary vessels so common inlevels V through VII. These occur in two forms: a globular or ovoid footed vessel with shortvertical or slightly everted rim; and a shallow, footed "goblet" with a carinated, sharplyinverted shoulder. The earliest forms of both types of vessel appear to have been muchlarger than the type common in the later levels, ranging up to about 30 cm in height; inaddition, the large versions of the globular vessels often lack ring feet, having instead asharply rounded conical base. The more standard small versions of both types also occur inthis level, but seem to be somewhat later.

Level V. This level is associated with the lower horizon in Layer 6and represents the periodof most intensive use of the cemetery; 23 burials (3 tentative) were recovered in the 1968excavation area; all but 2 of them were adults. The burials of this level occur over theentire site, excepting squares OF and IE, and are strongly standardized in comparison tothose of earlier levels: they are almost invariably oriented to the southwest (a few cases varyto WSW and S by W) in graves averaging 55.6 cm in depth, have hands placed below thepelvis, and feature standardized furniture consisting of a group of four small footed vessels(two globular and two goblet types) placed beyond the head, usually accompanied by one ormore large clam shells (PI. IlIb). In many cases a similar group of pots was placed on top ofthe grave fill; animal bones and sherd sheets were also fairly common. The small, footedfunerary vessels, which were also encountered frequently in burials in the 1966 area,apparently represent standardized descendants of the larger, more variable vessels of similardesign mentioned above, which were not encountered in the burials of the nearly equivalent1966 Level II. These small, standardized vessels continued to be used throughout levels VIand VII and were later exhumed by the iron-period inhabitants of the site for use as cineraryvessels. Several of these vessels contained a few very small fish vertebrae, possibly indicatingthe use of some sort of fermented fish product at this date (1800 B.C.).

One of the burials of this level contained a bronze axe of a type similar to that recoveredfrom a Layer 19 (Level III) burial in 1966 (pictured in Solheim 1968b: 60, PI. lIb). The flatcutting edge with upcurved ends of this type of axe seems fairly distinct from the earliercurved-blade variety and was apparently introduced during the 1966 Level III period,which is not present in the 1968 area of excavation. Although no axe molds were recoveredfrom 1968 Level V, evidence of bronze casting is offered by the presence of 2 earthenwarecrucibles bearing bronze stains that were found in a Level V burial pit.

As is the case with Level IV, no structures were detected at this level. Features werelimited to graves and a few scattered postholes, some of which form a dubious alignment insquares IF and OF.

Level VI. This is the earliest level in the 1968 sequence to provide significant structuralevidence of occupation as well as cemetery use; this level is approximately aligned with thepresent (eroded) surface of Layer 6. A large rectangular building occupies most ofthe easternand central portions of the area, extending southeast from square 3F to squares OF and IE.Its approximate dimensions are 12 m NW/SW by 6 m NE/NW; posthole spacing isapparently 3 m along the long axis of the building and 2.5 m-1.5 m-2.5 m along the shortaxis, indicating a 4 by 5 post pattern. This structure is notably larger than houses of theiron-period levels (VIII-X) and contemporary dwellings (Level XI). There are indications

126 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

that 2 possibly later structures were built in about the same area. One of these is about 9 mby 6 m with the long axis WNW/ESE with 2 m (?) posthole spacing; the second is also 9 m

c by 6 m,With 2 m spacing, but is oriented only slightly N ofW. Whatseems to be a long fence.'~ t9w extends in a slightly irregular line from square 4H to square 4D with small stakeholes at

1to'3m intervals. Three postholes in 4E and 4D indicate that a fourth possible structure

may li~ to the west of these trenches._ In addition to the above structures, some 12 adult burials (3 doubtful) were recovered

. from this level. These burials are sharply distinguished from those of both the precedingan,d following level by their orientation (N to NW), shallow graves (averaging 42.5 cm), andhand position (alongside or on the pelvis, rather than under it as with Level V burials; thistrait is common to levels VI and VII, however). An additional contrast with both adjoininglevels is the scattered spacing of Level VI burials: two are located under the large structurein the east-central area of the site, with the remaining burials irregularly dispersed to thewest and south of the building. Six groups of large, round-bottomed, cord-marked potsnested together were also recovered in shallow pits originating from this level or Level VII.

. All but one pot were some distance from any burial of this or the next period, and hence mayrepresent a later type of "votive deposit."

Level VII. During this period the site again returned to cemetery use, although the latererosion of the upper portion of Layer 6, with which this level is associated, may well haveremoved whatever structural evidence may have been present. We encountered 19 burials(4 doubtful) originating from Level VII; the skeletons, with the exception of 1 child and 1adolescent, all appear to have been of adults. A fair amount of evidence supports the con-

, clusion that the population using the site during this period was more closely related to thepopulation of Level V than that of the intervening level: a return was made to more or lessorderly spacing of burials over the areas used in Level V; orientation returned to the south­west, and graves deepened to an average of 52.5 cm below the present surface of Layer 6,cutting into the earlier Level VI burials in six cases. Differences in burial type betweenLevel VII and Level V, which seem to indicate a considerable time span for the interveninglevel, are that in Level VII burials the hands were placed on top of the pelvis and the groupof 4 standard pots was not found beyond the head; although these standard vessels appear

'singly in several graves of Level VII, the small, red-slipped, flat-bottomed jars that are,apparently unique to this level are more common. Two pots in the forms of animals (anelephant and a frog (?» bearing very similar red-slipped vessels on their backs are also

'. tentatively assigned to Level VII (PI. IVa). Also recovered from a burial of Level VII was abronze axe with a thin blade some 16 cm wide by 5 cm long (excluding socket of 6 cm) and

/a plain bronze bracelet with circular cross section.Level VIII. Evidence from the 1966 excavation indicates that a considerable period of

time may have elapsed between the last bronze-period occupation of the site and theearliest iron-period settlement (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 46). However, the erosionof Layer 6 over the 1968 area of the site has removed not only whatever evidence of 1966

-. levels VI and VII (layers 16-13) may have been present, but also any trace of an equivalentto 1966 sterile Layer 12. Hence the Layer 5 deposit resulting from this first iron-periodoccupation of the 1968 area lies directly above the Level VI deposit that thus has intrusivefeatures from Level VII, as well as the much later Level VIII. The Layer 5 deposit may well

" represent two concentrations of dense occupation separated by a period of more sparsesettlement; however, as neither extensive concentrated lenses of refuse nor sterile layers

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 127separating them are present, this layer will be treated as a single extended occupation for thepurposes of this interim report.

Judging from relative posthole depths and parallel alignment, I would say that twostructures were present during early Level VIII times. The first of these was a square orrectangular building running SSW from squares OF and IF out of the excavation area; itsdimensions were 6 m wide by at least 6 m long, with a probable 4 by 4 post pattern spacedfrom 2 m to 2.5 m apart. A second somewhat larger building stood on the higher butequally level ground to the west in squares 4F, 3F, 4E, and 3E; it measures about 9 m by6 m, with the long axis running NWjSE and a possible 5 by 5 post pattern. Later in theLevel VIII period, another building probably was constructed over this western one. Thislater structure seems to have been more square than rectangular and oriented more nearlyNjS. Posts were arranged in a 4 by 4 pattern and were about 2 m apart. Both of the westernstructures had shallow pits containing ash and charcoal, implying that they were eitherground-based buildings unlike those of the contemporary inhabitants or that they wereraised off the ground to a considerable height; the present villagers do not build fires beneaththeir houses, although the houses may be elevated as much as 2 m. In the case of the earlierfire pit, there are indications that it was surrounded by a fence or enclosure of some sort.Dwellers in both buildings used the area to the southwest, which at that time was a shallowgully (squares 4D and southern 4E), as a refuse dump, although the concentration of boneand sherds is not so dense as to constitute a genuine midden.

As we found in the 1966 excavation, the iron-period occupants of Non Nok Tha hadabandoned the practice of inhumation burial in favor of cremation and later burial of theashes in cinerary vessels, most of which were apparently excavated from the earlier graves(Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 55). However, burials of cinerary vessels of the typedescribed for 1966 levels VIII and IX were not encountered in 1968. The five burialsexcavated in 1968 Level VIII-one of them associated with the earlier period of denseoccupation, four with the later-were all of the type described for 1966 levels X-XII. Theseutilized the standard globular and goblet funerary vessels so common in the middle Bronzeperiod and a cubical pit rougWy 40 cm on a side. Other empty pits assigned to 1968 Level VIIImay well have been the result oflater inhabitants' frequent and all too successful attempts toobtain a supply of pots from the underlying levels V, VI, and VII burials.

More than seemed to be the case in 1966, no sharp break in pottery types between thebronze and iron periods was encountered in 1968. What differences do occur seem to beprimarily because of the predominance of funerary pottery in the earlier period; this is ofcourse lacking in the iron period. The domestic pottery that was recovered from the LevelVI occupation in 1968 seems to uphold this conclusion, as it bears a strong resemblance tothe later domestic wares. Rather, the most distinctive feature of the later pottery is theaddition of several new types to the common sand-tempered cord-marked ware that pre­dominates throughout most of the history of the site. In Level VIII, pottery tempered withlarge amounts of chaff or chaff and sand begins to become prominent; a small amount ofwheel-thrown pottery is also present. In addition, a limited quantity of stoneware and occa­sional sherds of celadon and crude porcelain make their appearance. All this plus the typeof cinerary vessel burial present and the lack of any trace of widespread destruction of thetype encountered in 1966 Level IX (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 50) support theconclusion that 1968 Level VIII slightly postdates 1966 Level IX.

Level IX. The thinness of Layer 4, associated with this level, as compared to Layer 5,

128 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

would seem to suggest a shorter duration of occupation for Level IX. However, three post­hole alignments seem to indicate that the area was in fact occupied and not marginal to anysettl~ment at this time. The structure suggested by these alignments occupied the west-

'~:" centfal portion of the site (squares 4F, 3F, 2F, 4E, 3E, and 2E) and was oriented with its; , ltIDg axis due east and west. This building measured about 9 m by 6 m, with a 4 by 4 post_ " pat(em similar to one style of contemporary dwelling; posthole spacing was 2 m NjS by- 3 IIi EjW. A 2 m by 3 m extension was present to the north of the northwest comer; the

~ .: 'presence of scatters of charcoal and a lumpy, clayey patch alongside and under the placef where this extension seems to have stood indicate that it may have served as the cooking and

~ater-storage area of the house, similar to modern houses in the region. As with the LevelVIII houses in the same area, the shallow gully to the southwest (which persisted into LevelIX times) was used as a refuse area.

To the east of this building, two crude kilns for burning lime to be used with betel werediscovered-one in square IE, the other in OF. Both were low mounds (probably old termitenests) of partially baked earth with a 50 cm hole in the center containing a quantity of char­coal and a lesser amount of lime. Signs of the lateral fueling hole present in contemporarykilns of this type were not in evidence. A probable fence row separating the building fromthe kilns runs ENE from 2E to OF and seems to extend back toward the northeast corner ofthe building. No cremation pot burials were found associated with this level, but severalempty pits were encountered that may have served to contain cinerary pots for burialelsewhere at the site.

Level X. During this period, the 1968 area was apparently quite marginal to whateveractivities were taking place at Non Nok Tha; only two postholes and three pits were clearlyassignable to this level. Of the relatively small quantity of sherds recovered from Layer 3, afairly high proportion in the lower areas of the site show signs of wear, which suggests thatthey may have been deposited by erosion from earlier layers to the south. However, wear byannual plowing, which extends into the upper portion of Layer 3, may have accounted forsome erOSIOn.

Level XI. Mter a period of abandonment that probably lasted more than a century, thepresent villagers of Ban Na Di settled nearby and began gardening at the site, producingmany planting holes, a few pits, and scattered postholes, but no signs of definite occupation;this theory is supported by the memories of the villagers as well. Oddly, it is at this levelthat the greatest break in overall pottery type appears: the earthenware in contemporary use

'. in Ban Na Di (made in one of the several potting villages in the general region) is manu­factured by a process similar to that used throughout the history of the site (paddle and anvil)but is never sand-tempered or cord-marked. The clay is instead tempered with fired fiberand clay balls which have been pulverized in a mortar; the vessel is shaped with a plainwooden paddle and is decorated with a carved wooden stamp in a single band around theneck (see Solheim 1964: 156-161). While the modern water storage and cooking pots beara fair degree of resemblance to the prehistoric ones, the common high-profile round-bot­tomed pot used in steaming the glutinous rice that is the staple of the area is, as far as canbe determined at present, strangely absent from Non Nok Tha.

Such is not the case with other items in current use at Ban Na Di, which often have veryclose counterparts in objects recovered at Non Nok Tha. For example, the socketed axescurrently used are very similar to those of the bronze period, although they are formed ofiron rather than bronze. The small, round clay pellets found in all levels of the site were at

BAYARD: NonNok Tha, Thailand 129once recognized by the workmen as ammunition for a two-stringed pellet bow. Lime­burning kilns formed by excavation of termite mounds such as the two found in Level IXare still in use today. Some degree of relationship may be seen as well between the con­temporary house types and those described above. The modern houses are all elevated atleast 1.5 m above the ground and are rectangular. Cooking is performed in either a separateelevated extension or on a corner of the veranda that almost invariably adjoins one side ofthe house. The traditional form of Lao house in the area consists of two houses of about10 m by 6 m joined by a porch between them; each has a 3 by 4 or 4 by 4 post pattern, withspacing of about 2 m. Other smaller single houses have similar patterns and probably reflectan old style of building; a small, 4 by 4 m house with a 3 by 3 post pattern is becoming in­creasingly popular at present, and according to the villagers, represents an introductionfrom either central Thailand or the Khorat area.

Some degree of continuity in burial practices also exists, particularly as far as iron-periodpractices are concerned. At present, after cremation, selected bones are gathered up (usuallyfrom the region over the heart) and saved in jars. Rather than being buried, however, thejars are stored either in the family dwelling or in the village wat. Children under the age ofeight and adults who have died violently are not cremated, but are buried at the cremationgrounds in shallow, unmarked graves. Often, however, favorite possessions are buried withthem, and both possessions and food offerings are frequently burned along with a cremation.

CORRELATION WITH 1966 SEQUENCE

Although it would of course have been desirable to excavate a trench connecting the 1966and 1968 areas of the site to ensure accurate stratigraphic continuity, it proved to be animpossible task owing to time limitations and problems with multiple ownership of the landinvolved. Hence, the correlation presented here relies primarily on my impressions of soildistinctions in both areas, and even more on burial and pottery typologies. Despite the lackof direct continuity, however, the correlation presented here so far seems quite consistent interms of both the radiocarbon chronology of the two areas of the site and the general trendsin evolution of burial and pottery types distinguished in both excavations.

As may be observed by a comparison of the foregoing description of archaeological levelswith that presented in the 1966 preliminary report, a greater degree of discrepancy existsbetween the two areas than would be expected, given their close physical proximity (seeFig. 4). The most noticeable difference is that caused by the erosion of the upper part of1968 Soil II, which results in the absence in this area oflayers corresponding to 1966 layers12-16. Clear evidence of this erosion is present in the many shallow posthole butts en­countered that were obviously not deep enough to have originated from Level VI on ornear the present Layer 6 surface, as well as in badly eroded Level VII burials in those partsof the 1968 area where erosion was apparently most severe (the eastern and northern edgesof the excavation). It is of course not possible to say with certainty that layers equivalent to9 through 16 of 1966 were in fact ever formed over the eroded portion of 1968 Layer 6, butthe former presence of at least part of this series seems likely given the lack of any significantdegree of variation in elevation between the two areas and the absence of a correspondinglythicker Soil I in the 1966 area. In fact, Soil I in the 1968 area is markedly thinner than soilsI and II in the 1966 area, and the surface of 1968 Soil II, although eroded, is noticeably

13° Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

higher than the corresponding surface of 1966 Soil III to the south, implying a' still highersurfllce for 1968 Soil II prior to erosion.

I~ addition to this major discrepancy, other significant differences may be noted. ForF''-.:.l exafuple, the lower part of the Level VIII occupation (1968 Layer 5) seems to be slightly

" l\lter in time than 1966 Level IX, based on the differences in sherd types encountered; the. ,," J 9~8 Level VIII features a significant amount of fiber-and-sand-tempered sherds quite, similar to those encountered in the nearby site of Nam Phong 6 and the Lam Pao 3 site at

~ '.~' Ban Sao Lao, Kalasin, some 125 Ian ESE of Non Nok Tha (Solheim and Gorman 1966: 132­f 135, 174-178; Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 85-88). Sherds of these types are very rare

~ in 1966 Level IX. A second lack of correspondence is the apparent absence of any exactequivalent of 1968 Level VII in the 1966 sequence: although burials typologically similar to1968 Level V are succeeded by 1966 Layer 17 burials similar to 1968 Level VI, the subse­quent return to strict southwest orientation and other features of 1968 Level VII are notpresent to the south.

A larger gap in the 1968 sequence is represented by the absence of an equivalent to thesouth or southeast-oriented Layer 18 (Level IV) burials on the eastern portion of the 1966area. The deep, narrow graves with bovine limbs of 1966 Layer 19 are also completely absentin the 1968 area, and Level IV in the 1968 sequence seems slightly earlier than the majorityof Layer 20 (Level II) material encountered in 1966. The only features in this latter areathat might be ascribed to 1968 Level IV are limited to the western quarter of the 1966 , .excavation (squares D6, D7, and C7), where several secondary burials with pottery verysimilar to 1968 Level IV pottery were found. These burials were tentatively assigned toeither Layer 21 or Layer 20 in 1966, but seemed typologically distinct from either layer.With the evidence from the 1968 excavation, it now seems fairly certain they are indeedintermediate between 1966 Levels I and II and closely equivalent to 1968 Level IV, whilethe Level II material over the major portion of the 1966 area is somewhat later still andabsent from the 1968 area.

What was referred to as Layer 21 or Level I in the 1966 sequence seems at present to be 1represented by three distinct levels in the 1968 area, validating the estimate made by R. H. .

IParker at the time of the 1966 excavation (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 13). Although 'it is possible to state that the more elaborate, deeper burials of 1966 "lower" Level I are]equivalent to the 1968 Level I burials originating in Layer 9, I was unable to draw a strati- :graphic distinction between Level III and Level II as represented in 1968 Layer 8, although

'. the typological differences between burials of the two levels seem quite clear-cut. Based on 'I

this typology, 1966 burials 26 and 81 are almost certainly equivalent to the 1968 Level IIIburials, which share their marked disarticulation. However, the correspondence of 1968Level II with the remaining Layer 21 features in the 1966 area is far more tentative. Afurther difference between the burials of 1968 levels I-III and 1966 Level I is the apparentpaucity of burial mounds in the case of the former levels: only four mounds or traces ofpossible mounds were encountered in association with 1968 Level I and Level II burials.

CHRONOLOGY

As of this writing (August 1969), we have received 25 radiocarbon dates on charcoal fromNon Nok Tha from five laboratories: Gakushuin University (GaK), Tata Institute (TF),Yale University (Y), Florida State University (FSU), and Geochron Laboratories (GX).

Of the samples dated 15 were derived from the 1966 excavation, and 10 were 1968 samples;a complete list is presented in Table 1 and Figure 5.

The 25 dates listed in Table 1 were plotted against the integrated 1966 and 1968 sequence(see Fig. 4); correction procedures used are those used by Solheim (1968b: 61). Obviously,the radiocarbon chronology of Non Nok Tha presents a number of problems. Resolution ofthese problems seems ofparticular importance in view ofthe possibility that a well-developedtradition of double-mold bronze casting may have been present in northeastern Thailand

,·j~ ...!

',' -'

1",1ayers: ~ ~~ ~~ @@@ -®®" @ ®®®@@®®0. CD CD (!)CD0· ~0CD1..... I.v.I.:· 0 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

2000,

~to... lID'"

flU ~,.. I....

~_o~~~1000 ..AD

dt ~t0Be

~~"I

-~~j tl ~il~ ...... ~ it"

, 1000- loaps~ t'2

~GLI02t2.1,~~ &Y .1

2000-

ItGX

",iilJ~3000

• ~N'ON NOK THA

4000RADIOCARBON DATES

~ IN4_ B.se Date

I One- Sigma Range, :..... I....

Two-Sigma Range5000

Fig. 5 Radiocarbon dates, 1966 and 1968 excavations. FSU dates suspected to have been contamjnated are diagonally hatched._·-6';': <>e. fdA·f· ..,•. sr- ·'m O· 7 ·r·''''''' 1 .not· '-0

I-l(.N

N

~-.~

~

~~~~

~-.~

~...

~­...-I-l\0'-lo

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 133well before 2300 B.C. Unfortunately, no final resolution can be offered at this time; however,some explanation of the individual dates may help support or negate the validity of the early

bronze dates.Ten of the dates from the 1966 excavation have already been presented and discussed by

Solheim (1968b); however, some additional comments on two of these ten dates should bementioned here. Although the sample that produced the Y 1851 date was originally ascribedto Layer 20, we later concluded that it was in fact derived from a second burial (No. 78) cutinto Layer 20 Burial 62 (Solheim 1968b: 61). Examination of final section drawings andphotographs of this burial indicate that both stratigraphically and typologically the burialbelongs to the group of Layer 17-18 burials, which seem to be intermediate between thesouth-oriented burials of Layer 18 and the north-oriented burials of Layer 17 (althoughit was erroneously listed as Level III in the 1966 report). It should also be noted that Burial48, which provided the sample for GaK 1029, may derive from a somewhat earlier point inthe layer 18-"17-18"-17 continuum than the upper end ofthis series; typologically, the burialappears to be intermediate between 1968 Level V and Level VI. Hence its position (Fig. 4)should be regarded as tentative.

Since the publication of these dates, five additional samples from the 1966 excavationhave been dated by Gakushuin University. One of these (GaK 1028) seems to have beenaffected by the same factors which distorted GaK 958 and 1027; a second also seems muchtoo early in relation to the remaining dates (GaK 1032). Two of the remaining dates fit thepublished sequence quite well: GaK 1034 and GaK 1033. The later date almost certainlyderives from one of two graves dug into the grave of Layer 21 Burial 6, and thus may serveto date either Layer 17 or Layer 17-18. The last date (GaK 1031) is considerably later thanthe published sequence would seem to imply.

A single sample from the 1968 excavation was dated by Yale; this date (Y 2485) was on aparticularly secure, large charcoal sample from Level VI Burial 95 and fits the 1966 sequencequite well. However, in April of this year, six additional samples from the 1968 excavationwere dated by Florida State University (diagonally hachured in Fig. 4); these dates form aninternally consistent sequence considerably later than that formed by the 1966 dates. Indeed,the two upper samples (from Level VIII and Level IV) contained more Carbon-14 thancontemporary organic material, which produced a "date" some years in the future. Thecrucial question is, of course, whether all six samples have been affected equally by somemodem source of radioactivity, or whether only the two upper samples were so affected. Ifthe latter is the case, then the four earlier samples, combined with GaK 1031 and lessprobably with GaK 959, would tend to support the more traditional dating ofthe first appear­ance of metallurgy in Southeast Asia at about 600 B.C. for double-mold casting, althoughthe 1200 B.C. date for Level III and the first appearance of metal at the site is stillsurprisingly early.

In an attempt to resolve this question, we submitted three more samples to GeochronLaboratories. A sample from the same Level VIII fire pit dated by Florida State Universityas modem was dated by Geochron at 500± 85 B.P. (GX 1609); a secure sample from a LevelV burial pit (containing bronze bracelets) was dated at 3685± 100 B.P. Both of these datesstrongly support the early sequence and imply that the samples submitted to Florida Statewere somehow contaminated in shipment. However, a sample from what I feel is an equallysecure Level I context was dated at 880 ± 130 B.C., which of course tends to support thelater sequence, although I believe it seems too late even for that.

134 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

Thus at present we have 11 dates forming a relatively straightforward sequence supportinga very early development of metallurgy in Southeast Asia, 5 or 6 dates supporting the more

;"" traditional later arrival of metal-working, and 8 dates that support neither sequence. Our),",'-':-1 diffitulties in obtaining consistent dates seem to stem from two factors: the extensive dis­, 'tlir~ance present at the site during its long history as a cemetery, and later as a source of. ,," {;in~tary urns, compounded by the very difficult soil conditions; and contamination of the. ~ samples, either in situ (possibly from rootlet penetration sometime after deposition but long

" '. ~before excavation) or in transit to the laboratory, as I believe to have been the case with the ,six Florida State dates.

: In conclusion, I believe at present that the early sequence is the correct one based on theinternal evidence from the site that is available to date, although I am certain that many willarrive at alternative conclusions from the data presented. However, additional support forthe early sequence is available in the form of two dates from other sites in mainland SoutheastAsia. The Hang Gan 1 site some 60 kIn ENE of Saigon has produced bronze and doublemolds dated at 3950±250 B.C. or 2120±250 B.C. with corrected half-life (Saurin 1968: 3).Sherds from the site of Ban Chiang, Udc;m Province, Thailand, have been dated by theUniversity of Pennsylvania at 4630± 520 B.C. (thermoluminescence date PT-104; ChinYou-di, personal communication). The pottery dated is a very distinctive (and handsome)red-on-white ware similar to a vessel from 1966 Burial 26 (dated by GaK 1034 at 3590± 320B.C.) at Non Nok Tha; in addition to this vessel (illustrated in Solheim 1967b: 901), severalother sherds of this type have been recovered from this site. While the association of the4630 B.c. date with the bronze artifacts encountered in burials at Ban Chiang is uncertainin the opinion of the excavator (Vidya Intakosai, personal communication), Burial 26 in the1966 excavation at Non Nok Tha is typologically almost identical with 1968 Burial 90-thisburial contained the copper tool mentioned above that at present seems to be the earliestmetal at the site. Thus, while the evidence for the presence of metallurgy in Southeast Asiaat a date of 3000 B.C. or earlier is at present not conclusive, it seems quite probable. We hopethat further dates from other bronze-period sites will settle the question conclusively in thenear future.*

NON NOK THA 1968: A PRELIMINARY INTERPRETATION

Although analysis of materials from both of the excavations at Non Nok Tha is stillincomplete at this writing, it is possible to summarize and update the conclusions publishedelsewhere (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966; Solheim 1968a). The evidence for the se­quence of development at Non Nok Tha obtained during 1968 closely parallels that fromthe 1966 excavation and indicates that the history of the site may be divided into two distinctperiods of occupation. These are: an early period characterized by stone and later copperand bronze tools, large quantities of sand-tempered, cord-marked earthenware apparently

* [added in proof] Since August 1969 five additional dates have been received; four of these (kindly processedby the University of Pennsylvania) are thermoluminescence dates on pottery from Non Nok Tha burials,while the fifth is a collagen date on bone from 1968 Burial 90 (processed by Isotopes, Inc.). While thecollagen date seems too late even for the late sequence, the four thermoluminescence dates lend unequivocalsupport to the early sequence, although implying a somewhat later date for Level I than estimated above.The dates and their implications are discussed in my revised and updated account of the 1968 excavation(Non Nok Tha: The 1968 Excavation. Procedure, Stratigraphy, and A Summary of the Evidence. Universityof Otago Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, vol. 4. Dunedin, New Zealand).

BAYARD: NonNok Tha, Thailand 135intended primarily for funerary use, and inhumation burials featuring more or less elaborateofferings of large animal bones, stone, bone, and metal tools, and numerous pots; secondly,a period characterized by mainly occupational rather than cemetery use of the area, thereplacement of inhumation burial with cremation and burial of the ashes in specializedvessels, and the introduction of iron tools. The first of these periods extends from 1966-1968Level I through 1966 Level VII; the second begins after a hiatus of some 600 to 800 yearswith 1966 Level VIII and extends to the abandonment of the site some two to three hundred

years ago.One of the chief deficiencies in the chronology of the site is the lack of an accurate date

for its earliest occupation; however, based on the amount of change in burial and potterytypes between the lowest level of the site and that of 1968 levels III and IV, the first occupa­tion may well date from the fifth millennium B.C. Levels I and II, extending up to an estimated3500 B.C. date for Level III, show a close relationship with each other and with the followinglevel; while levels IV-VII are quite clearly continuations of the same culture, the appearanceof several new pottery types in Level IV tends-to subdivide the early period into two units.During the first of these (equivalent to 1966 Level I) the evidence from both excavationssuggests a culture relying on tools of stone (largely imported phyllite, diorite, and fine­grained quartzite), antler, and bone, with copper making a very limited appearance onlytoward the end of this period during the latter half of the fourth millennium B.C. Stone adzesin use during this period, like those used in levels IV-VII, are uniformly small (rarely over5 cm in length) with a low rectangular cross section; shouldered adzes are lacking completely.Double-pointed narrow cylinders of bone ranging from 5 to 10 cm in length have beententatively identified as fish gorges, an identification supported by occasional finds of jawbones from moderately large fish, presumably from the nearby Nam PhQng. However,cattle, pigs, and cervids seem to have been a more important protein source, judging by thefrequency with which bones of these animals occur in the burials of levels I-III. At leastsome of the cattle bones examined thus far seem to be those of domesticated animals(c. F. W. Higham, personal communication).

As was the case in 1966, no direct evidence of agriculture was recovered from this portionof the early period at the site; but since the writing of the 1966 report we have discoveredthat the distinctive globular and goblet-shaped funeral vessels popular from Level IVthrough Level VII quite often contain tiny pieces of silicified vegetable remains, which inmany cases are clearly identifiable as rice chaff. Moreover, a single pot was discovered in aLevel I pit (absolute depth 215 cm) that contained a small amount of carbonized rice chafftemper (PI. IVb), thus indicating the probable presence of rice agriculture in the area priorto 3500 B.C. and perhaps extending back as far as the beginning of the fifth millennium B.C.

In any event this would seem to be the oldest dated (pre-3500 B.C.) remains of rice yet en­countered. Chaff-tempered sherds also occur sporadically in Level III and are relativelycommon from Level IV (ca. 2600 B.C.) upwards. Whether the agricultural technique involvedslash-and-burn or wet cultivation remains unknown at present; it is hoped that expertexamination of the rice remains and palynological analysis of three series of soil samplescollected at and near the site will settle the question. The discovery of a number of multiplepostholes in levels III, IV, and VI and alignments that seem to suggest superimposed struc­tures in these levels tends to imply a migratory cycle of settlement, abandonment, and re­settlement that may be connected with slash-and-burn agriculture, but this ofcourse remainsa highly speculative interpretation.

Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

The latter part of the Level I-III period saw the first introduction of metal at the site,apparently in very small quantities. The copper tool found in Burial 90 and two additional

..., tiny ftagments represent the only traces of metal encountered in this level, as none wasf~'recovdred from upper Layer 21 in the 1966 excavation. The nearest source for this copper

and that used in bronze manufacture during Level IV and later would seem to be the._dep~ii:s in the valley of the Lam Pa Sak some 130 km to the west of Non Nok Tha (see~repori: of R. Pittioni in this volume). This general area may also be the source of some of the

, .slone for adze manufacture, although any evidence of the actual presence ofestablished traderoutes will have to await investigation of the Pa Sak Vallei in Phetchabun Province; at }rfi'esent the area is completely unknown archaeologically.

The beginning of the latter half of the early period at Non Nok Tha (1968 Level IVthrough 1966 Layer 13-Level VII) saw the introduction of several new pottery types to thefunerary inventory. The footed globular and goblet pots appear for the first time, as dopedestaled shallow bowls generally resembling Chinese tau. The incised scroll-and-triangleand batwing designs found on some of the Level I vessels and the apparently later versionsof these designs impressed or painted on the very rare Level II or Level III vessels arecompletely absent from Level IV upward. Even more significant is the evidence for fairlyintensive casting of bronze rather than copper at the site. While we have found no evidenceof ore smelting, which was presumably done at the mining site, all of the six pairs of double ,molds, and additional mold fragments found to date are manufactured of local sandstone 'I

(PhraWihan Formation in most cases, although a few pieces seem to be more representativeof the PhtI Kradiing Formation; Haworth et aI. 1964). Other evidence for casting includes

, the presence of several crucibles with bronze fragments adhering in Level IV and V gravesarid frequent finds of tiny round nodules of bronze that appear to be casting spillage.

From the increased concentration of the burials of these levels it might be assumed that thearea was somewhat more densely populated than in the Level I-III period, but this conditionmay'merely reflect a more concentrated, use of a single portion of the mound. Similarly,the sharp decline in burials of infants and children may simply be a result of a separate burialarea for them elsewhere on the mound, as was apparently the case with Level II. Anotherburial difference is the seeming decline of human sacrifices as accompaniment to burial,

. particularly after Level IV, although it should be noted that evidence from the 1968 ex­

. cavation indicates that this practice was apparently less common than the evidence fromthe 1966 area alone would indicate. Grave offerings in general tended to become increasingly

'. simplified during levels V through VII, culminating in the very simply furnished burials of1966 levels VIand VII that were not encountered during the 1968 excavation. Animal

! _ remains are also quite rare during this latter period and are mainly limited to large clamshells placed near the head;

, Level VI produced the only relatively intensive occupational evidence from the earlyperiod recovered to date from Non Nok Tha. In addition to the structilralevidence of thethree house alignments mentioned earlier, a large amount ofsherds that seem to be domestic 'jrather than funeniry ware was found in this level. In contrast to the predominantly sand­tempered, almost always cord-marked funerary wares of the earlier levels, Level VI pottery jon preliminary analysis seems to be nearly one-quarter fiber or fiber-and-sand tempered; '1','

a much larger proportion of the sherds are plain, although cord-marked sherds continue topredominate. Whether this distinction between domestic and funerary vessels is characteris-

-. tic of the entire Level IV-VII subdivision or is limited to Level VI is at present not known.

Plate IIIb Level V Burial 33, showing funerary vessels beyond head (from southwest).

Plate IV a Elephant and frog (?) effigy vessels, probably from Level VII; b, top,potsherd with imprint of rice husk (NNT 629, Layer 7); bottom, enlargementof carbonized lemma of Oryza species removed from sherd (NNT 467,Layer 9 [1968], before 3600 B.C.; picture from Hitoshi Kihara, Kihara Institutefor Biological Research, Yokohama, Japan).

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 137A feature that does serve to distinguish the Level IV-VII period from the earlier three levelsis the common presence of axially pierced biconical objects of fired clay thought to be eithernet weights or spindle whorls-more probably the latter. Their presence may indicate theintroduction of cotton cultivation during Level IV times; however, this interpretation isnaturally extremely speculative.

Given our hopes ofuncovering the occupational and bronze-working areas that indicationsin 1966 led us to believe lay to the north of that excavation, it was disappointing to discoverthat these areas had been eroded in the 1968 portion of the mound. Thus the more recentexcavation produced no additional information on the period represented by 1966 layers12-16 (levels VI and VII). Moreover, any trace of the long gap between the bronze-periodand iron-period occupations of the site represented by Layer 12 in the 1966 excavation wasalso either eroded as well or was not laid down. However, the evidence from the 1966 ex­cavation indicates a long period of abandonment of the site, extending from perhaps 100 to300 A.D. up to about 1000 A.D., although the possibility of utilization ofother portions of themound during this period cannot be ruled out.

In viewing the material from Level VIII, and from the whole of this latter division of thehistory of the site; it is obvious that, as was stated in the 1966 report, " ...a profound andpervasive cultural change in its character has taken place" (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard1966: 46). The chief examples of this change are: the abandonment of inhumation burialsin favor of cremation mentioned previously, which quite likely reflects the introduction ofbrahmanistic concepts to the area; the common occurrence ofiron tools, many ofthem tangedin contrast to the universally socketed tools of the earlier period; the rarity of remains oflarge meat animals and their apparent replacement by fowl and pig in the diet; and thereduction in size of the housepost alignments encountered in levels VIII and IX to dimen­sions closely approximating modern houses in the area. One interesting result of the 1968excavation is the possibility that the domestic pottery of the two periods had more in com­mon than the 1966 evidence indicated, as suggested by the Level VI pottery mentionedabove. The pottery of the latter period also gives evidence of considerably more trade thanwas the case in the earlier period, based on the greater percentage of sherds present thatseem to be non-local. The bulk of the pottery, however, continues in the same generaltradition that prevails throughout the site: cord-marked, usually round-bottomed ware withsand and fiber-and-sand as the predominant temper. Indeed, the pottery of Level IX inmany ways has more in common with that of Level VI or even Level I than with the con­temporary pottery of the area. This may be due to the fact that pottery manufacture in theregion today is confined to specialized villages, most of which seem to be Thai Khorat­speaking and" composed of relatively recent migrants from the south.

In summary, the evidence from both excavations supports the presence at Non Nok Thaof a generally similar cultural tradition over a time span of as much as 7,000 years. Theoccupation was not a continuous one, however, and the tradition was far from static orunchanging. New elements appear frequently in the history of the site, and often onepopulation seems to have been replaced by a related but distinct group showing markeddifferences from the earlier one. This seems to have been the case with Level III in the 1966excavation (absent in the 1968 sequence), as well as with 1968 Level IV and the new featuresaccompanying it. The replacement of stereotyped Level V burials by those of Level VI andthe later return ofthe earlier form in Level VII is an even clearer example ofthis phenomenon.The gap between the earlier and later periods of occupation of the site obviously saw

13 8 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

important but undocumented changes taking place. These changes included the introductionofcremation, presumably as part of a complex of brahmanistic or Buddhist beliefs, and theintroduction of iron tools and technology. The evidence afforded by the sharp drop in largeanim~l remains, and their replacement by remains of those animals that currently form theseGond major source of protein after fermented fish, might also lead to the speculation thatslash:..and-burn cultivation of rice was replaced by the paddy system (or at least an economicsystem more closely approximating the present one) during this gap. However, we have nodirect evidence for this interpretation at present.

EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

Since the Thai-Danish Expedition of 1960-1962 initiated prehistoric archaeologicalexcavation in Thailand, interest in the prehistory of the area has grown yearly, and theamount of available data is following suit, although it is still sparse. Excavation of SpiritCave in extreme northwestern Thailand has provided details of the food-collecting to food­producing transition in Southeast Asia and has yielded the oldest possible plant domesticatesyet discovered in the world (Gorman 1969, 1970). In addition to the Thai-Danish investi­gation of Hoabinhian and later neolithic sites at Sai Yok, Ban Kao and other sites in westernThailand (van Heekeren and Knuth 1967; Sorensen 1967a, 1967b), the Thai-BritishExpeditions of 1965-1969 have excavated a neolithic-early bronze-period site near ChaiBadan at the northeastern edge of the central plain and a protohistoric (i.e., pre-Dvaravati)site at Tha Muang near U Thl;mg (Watson and Loofs 1967, Watson 1968). The Thai FineArts Department has excavated an early iron period site at Lop Buri (Chin 1965), while theUniversity of Pennsylvania has devoted two seasons of excavation to a protohistoric andDvaravati site at Chan Sen (Dales 1968; Siwali 1969; Bronson, in press).

In the more immediate area of Non Nok Tha, the Khorat Plateau, the Fine Arts Depart­ment has excavated at the site of Ban Chiang, eastern Udl;m Province (Vidya Intakosai,personal communication); and at the iron-period site of Non Hang, Maha Sarakham Prov­ince (Viraj Khunnamas, personal communication). The Fine Arts Department-Universityof Hawaii Salvage Program conducted excavations at the protohistoric and historic sites ofPhimai, Nakh<;m Ratchasima and Ban Sao Lao, Kalasin (also reported in Solheim, Parker,and Bayard 1966), as well as at Non Nok Tha; the University of Hawaii Thailand Archaeol­ogy Program currently has surveys underway in the Pha Mgng reservoir region in westernUd9n Province (Marsh 1969). Although publication of data from these excavations is farfrom complete, enough has appeared to allow some comparison of the material from NonNok Tha to that of other sites in Thailand, as well as to earlier excavations in neighboringareas.

The site which to date seems to offer the closest parallels to the lower levels of the NonNok Tha early period is that of Khok Garoen near Chai Badan, Lop Buri Province. Aspointed out by Watson (1968: 304), the closest resemblances of the Khok Charoen potteryseem to be with that of NNT (Non Nok Tha) 1966 layers 19 and 20 (1968 levels IV-V);particularly noteworthy are the slipped, pedestaled bowls very similar to those of NNTLevel IV and the globular cord-marked vessels with smooth shoulders that are foundthroughout NNT levels I-V (Watson and Loafs 1967: 252-253). Other parallels betweenthe two sites are evident in the small, low-profile rectangular adzes and shell beads en-

BAYARD: Non N ok Tha, Thailand 139countered at Khok Charoen; one should note, however, that no bronze was found at thissite (Watson 1968: 303-304).

Other more distant relationships with NNT levels I-IV may be present at the BanChiang site-which contained burials with bronze implements and a large quantity ofred-on-white ware (not definitely associated with the burials) similar to rare sherds and asingle pot excavated from NNT Level III-and at a recently discovered site near Ban Na Di,western Udgn Province, called Non Ban Khg or Na Klang 3 (Marsh 1969: 4). Here thelowest of three levels encountered in test excavations (60-150 cm) contains some amount ofthin, red-slipped sherds similar to a relatively common type in NNT Level IV. However,the excavator would hesitate in drawing any conclusions from this general similarity.

By far the most interesting (and to date least successful) external relationship to besought in these lower levels is in the area of metal technology. Even if the indirect date of3500 B.C. on the copper tool recovered from Level III is not considered, the amount ofcultural change taking place between Level III and Level IV, including the considerabledevelopment in metalworking, would seem to indicate a minimum age of about 2700 B.C. ifour main dates are at all correct. This date is about 850 years earlier than the estimatedbeginnings of metallurgy in the Chinese Nuclear Area (Chang 1968: 231), and the tech­nology involved in both the Level III tool and the more numerous tools, crucibles, andmolds from levels V-VII seems to bear little or no resemblance to the Chinese material(Noel Barnard, personal communication). Moreover, the Non Nok Tha technology alsoseems completely unrelated to that of the Indus Valley civilizations in that it totally lacksflat-mold casting and any sign of tanged or shaft-hole hafting. Non Nok Tha casting metal­lurgy would also seem to have antedated that of the Indus region by 200 years at the veryleast (Solheim 1968b: 62).

At present the method of manufacture of the Level III tool is still uncertain, but thepresence of traces of arsenic and phosphorus, as well as large amounts of copper oxide,would seem to rule out cold-working of native copper (Barnard, personal communication;Thompson 1958: 1). The presence of smelted or at least remelted copper at this early dateis even more surprising. The relationship of the early tool to those of Level IV and later atNon Nok Tha seems quite clear, but obvious external relationships for both levels are com­pletely lacking. The closest parallels seem to be the socketed celts of eastern Russia andSiberia atthe end of the third millennium B.C. (Loehr 1956: 86-96), and hence later than thoseof Level IV. In short, at present it appears to be quite possible that a separate inventionof metalworking based on a socketed hafting technology and the use of double molds mayhave developed in Southeast Asia independently of stimulus from either China or the Indusand earlier than both areas. This hypothesis can only be tested by further research in thearea.

A search for close parallels in pottery and bronze technology with the latter portion of theearly period at Non Nok Tha (1968 Level V through 1966 Level VII) is also difficult. TheNon Ban Khg site mentioned earlier has produced sherds in the middle level of the site(20-50 cm) which bear similarities to those ofNNT 1968 Layer 6 (levels V-VII), althoughthey may be somewhat later in time; several bronze ornament fragments were also present(Marsh 1969: 5). General relationships seem to be present between the NNT material andsome of the artifacts from the Mlu Prei sites in northern Cambodia; these include similarsocketed bronze axes, sandstone double molds, and some general resemblances in pottery(cf. Levy 1943: PIs. 22; 23; 37, no. 22; 32, nos. 1-4,6,7, and 10). However, considerable

140 Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

, differences are present in the pottery, as well as in the predominance of high-rectangular or'\1 trapezoidal-sectioned adzes over low-rectangular ones. Some parallels are also present at the~ bronze--period sites of Hang Gon 1, 2, and 3 near Saigon, including an axe mold fragment

,"'quite §imilar to those of NNT levels IV-VII and grooved pieces of green sandstone verys'intilar to several recovered from NNT Levels III and IV (Sautin 1968: 2-6, PI. 2, nos. Sa,;~b, an:d 7).~ Relationships between the NNT material and that from the Bang Site at Ban Kao, the,most extensive excavation to date in the general area, are rather more difficult to define. Iwould not agree with Sorensen's statement that "...the Ban Kao culture is an independentcfIlture in Southeast Asia, i.e. without any significant relations to or connections with theCorded Ware culture" (Sorensen 1967b: 20), which would presumably include Non NokTha along with MIu Prei and Samrong Sen. Mter examining burial pottery from the Bangsite, from the early iron-period Artillery Site at Lop Buri, from Khok Charoen, and thatfrom Non Nok Tha at the National Museum in Bangkok, I was left with the strong im­pression that considerably more relationship was evident between the Non Nok Tha, KhokCharoen, Lop Buri, and Ban Kao burial pottery than exists between the last and anymaterial from north Chinese Lungshanoid sites. One of the problems in establishing closerrelationships would seem to be temporal. I accept Parker's revision of the Ban Kao sequence(Parker 1968) which describes the site as an earlier occupation area (ca. 1800-1300 B.c.)later used as an iron-period cemetery from about 500 B.C. to 500 A.D. This latter estimateis substantiated by a thermoluminescence date on black pottery from these burials by theUniversity of Pennsylvania of 290± 255' B.C. (PT 102). Given this late date, one would

, expect greater resemblance of the Ban Kao pottery to the Artillery Site, thermoluminescencedated at 700± 166 B.C. (PT 103), and to such protohistoric sites as Tha Muang (cf. potshown in Watson 1968: 305) than to the earlier sites at Khok Charoen and NNT I-VII.With the publication of the occupational refuse from the Bang Site in the near future,parallels with the middle bronze period at Non Nok Tha (levels V-VII) should becomemore evident. Even at present, Sorensen's pottery types 2, 18, 20, and 22 (Sorensen1967a: Pis. 90-91, 111, 112, 114-115) have reasonably close parallels with the middle bronzeperiod at Non Nok Tha, although only type 2 is distinctive enough to be said to be diag­nostic. In addition, the strings of shell disk beads and tubular stone beads (with beveledends) found with Bang Site Burial 11 (Sorensen 1967a: PI. 25) are identical with ones re­covered from Levels I-IV at Non Nok Tha.

v, Relationships to the protohistoric central plains sites of Tha Muang and Chan Sen, thelatter dated from about the first century A.D. (Siwali 1969: 76; Bronson, personal communica-

i_ tion), are apparently absent at Non Nok Tha. This may reflect the beginning of the largegap in the occupation ofthe site mentioned above, but more probably the failure ofinfluencesfrom the central plains to reach the relatively isolated area at this early date. Evidenceof contact, if any, would probably be found in the apparently later early iron-period sites ofNP 6 and D~m Kha near Non Nok Tha. Any connections with the controversial site ofSamrong Sen would also quite likely be found on these other sites, since in the light of therecent excavations in Thailand already discussed I have the impression, based largely on thepottery from the site (Mansuy 1902: PIs. 4-12), that the material is quite possibly late bronzeperiod or early iron period in date, rather than Neolithic. While numerous stone adzes wererecovered (as with the Bang Site burials), it should be remembered that at Non Nok Tha,stone adzes apparently continued to predominate over metal tooIs for a period of as long as

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailandfour thousand years (i.e., from 1968 Level III through 1966 Level VII, Layer 13). This alsoseems to have been the case at Tha Muang (Watson and Loofs 1967: 247).

With the reoccupation of Non Nok Tha during 1966 levels VIII and IX (layers 11 and 9)and particularly with 1968 Level VIII, connections immediately become apparent withother protohistoric sites in northeastern Thailand. While most of the pottery recovered fromthis upper period continues in the same general tradition as the earlier material, one par­ticular type (thick, black, sand-and-fiber tempered ware with whitish or pinkish surface) isvery close to the predominant ware of the middle levels of the Ban Sao Lao site (LP 3) inKalasin Province (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 87). In addition, the percentage ofapparently imported sherds of earthenware, as well as occasional sherds of stoneware andporcelain, rises markedly in comparison with the early period, where imported earthenwarewas quite rare. Noteworthy here is a white-slipped ware with a distinctively bulbous, heavyrim, painted in red or dark brown, very similar in form and design if not in temper to muchof the pottery I observed at the iron and bronze-working site of Non Hang in Maha Sarak­ham Province. Interestingly, there are few if any similarities with the protohistoric potteryexcavated at Phimai (Solheim, Parker, and Bayard 1966: 89-98). I suspect this is becausethe protohistoric levels at Phimai were very probably earlier than all but the very beginningof the upper period of occupation at Non Nok Tha, which seems to have begun in theeleventh century at the earliest. Pottery similar to contemporary ware in the area occurs atNon Nok Tha only on the surface or slighdy below it (probably owing to planting holes andplowing).

In summary, the picture that emerges at present for Non Nok Tha and central and north­eastern Thailand as a whole is, in my opinion, one of semiisolated but generally relatedcultures possessing a hitherto unguessed sophistication of technology (Solheim 1967b: 902;Gorman 1969: 673) but an apparendy low level of political organization. These culturespersisted from the Neolithic through the period of development of bronze technology andcoalesced into larger entities only upon the introduction of Indian concepts, both religiousand political, which helped to trigger the development of historic kingdoms in the area. Nosharp cultural divisions appear to be present prior to this influx ofconcepts. On the contrary,the Neolithic and Bronze period cultures of the Khorat Plateau seem to form a continuumof relationship with their immediate neighbors to the west of the Khorat Range (KhokCharoen) and to the south of the Dang Raek Mountains (MIu Prei). Relations are moredistant but still apparent to the neolithic sites excavated by the Danish expeditions inwestern Thailand and with sites to the east and south, such as Hang Gon 1, 2, and 3.

The more or less steady development of a culturally related series of populations at NonNok Tha during the late Neolithic and Bronze periods does not seem to have been radicallyaffected by the introduction of new items of technology (chief among them metallurgy).This specific area thus seems to have been a backwater of the formative or "crystallitic"period extending well into the era of general expansion or "extension" outward from Main­land Southeast Asia, to use terms recendy proposed by Solheim (1969: 137). The area wasand to some extent still is isolated, and it seems that not until considerably after the forma­tion of the first Indianized kingdoms to the south (Fu Nan), southeast (Chenla), and south­west (Dvaravati) did the influences of political and cultural centralization reach the area."

.. The 1968 excavation was made possible through the cooperation of the Fine Arts Department of Thailand;I am mOst grateful for the continued friendship, aid, and interest of Khun Chin You-di and Khun VidyaIntakosai of the National Museum, Bangkok, and ofKhun Viraj Khunnamas, who worked closely with me at

Asian Perspectives, XIII, 1970

REFERENCES

BRONSON, BENNETIn press Excavations at Chansen, Thailand: A preliminary report. Asian Perspectives.

f~. _ BROMl, J. MARVIN, 1965 Franz atlcient Thai to modern dialects. Bangkok: Social Science Association Press of Thailand.'aiANG, KWANG-CHlH

\968 The archaeology of ancient China. Revised and enlarged edition. New Haven: Yale University. Press.

. - -CHIN YOU-DI

1965 Riiallg k!!"prawatisat lae' kankhutkhon riiang kfnprawatisat nai Changwat Lop Buri [prehistory• and prehistoric excavations in Lop Buri Province]. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department.DALES, GWRGJ' F.

1968 The South Asia section. Expedition IX: 38-45. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.GORMAN, CHESTER F.

1969 Hoabinhian: a pebble-tool complex with early plant associations in Southeast Asia. S 163:671-673.

1970 Excavations at Spirit Cave, North Thailand: some interim interpretations. AP XIII: 79-107.HAWORTH, HOWARD E., JUMCHET C. JAVANPHET, PONGPAN NA CHIANGMAI, and CHAROEN PHICHAROEN

1964 Geologic map of northeastern Thailand. Ground Water Bulletin No.2, Plate II. (publisher andplace of publication not given.)

LEVY, PAUL1943 Recherches prlhistoriques dans la region de Mlu Prei. Hanoi: Imprimerie d'Extreme-Orient.

LOEHR,MAx1956 Chillese bronze-age weapons. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

MANSUY, H.1902 Statiotls prihistoriques de Somroll-Seng et de Longprao. Hanoi: F.-H. Schneider.

MARsH, TERRY T.1969 Results of a limited archaeological survey of the Nam Mong Drainage Basin, A. Na Klang, C.

Udorn: a preliminary report. Mimeographed.PARKER, R. H.

1968 Review article: Sorensen, Per and Tove Hatting, Archaeological excavations ill Thailand, Vol. II,Ban Kao, pt. l.]PS L){XVII: 307-313.

PENDLETON, ROBERT L., AND S. MONTRAKUN1960 The soils of Thailand. In Proceedings of the 9th Pacific Science Congress, Bangkok, 1957, vol. 18:

12-33. Bangkok: Department of Science.PHUANGSIN SUWANNARAT

n.d. Raingan kantruat loha' thi chai tham khwan samai boran [Report of examination of metal used tomake ancient axe]. University of Hawaii. Manuscript.

SAURIN, EDMOND1968 Nouvelles observations prehistoriques al'Est de Saigon. BSEI n.s. XLIII: 1-17.

SIEVEKING, G. DE G.1955 Excavations at Gua Cha, Kelantan, 1954. FM] I-II: 75-138.

SIWALI PHUPHET1969 Chan Sen: Banthiik Thai Riiang [Chan Sen: supplementary report]. Silapak!!n XII(6): 73-76.

.I - SOUiEIM, WILHELM G. II1964 Pottery manufacture in Sting Mor and Ban Nong Sua Kin Mat Thailand.]SS LII: 151-161.1966 Prehistoric archaeology in Thailand. A XL: 8-15.1967a Molds for bronze casting found in northeastern Thailand. ]SS LV: 87-88.

Non Nok Tha. I much appreciate the aid of Dr. Jotiseng Nandasuta of the National Research Council inexpediting government formalities, and am very grateful for the cooperation of Dr. Kavi Chutikul, Dean ofthe Faculty of Agriculture of Kh9n Kaen University, who generously supplied laboratory and storage spaceand equipment to the project; Gilbert Smith of the University also provided us with much important geologi­cal information on the area. My primary debt of gratitude, however, is to the four assistants and 24 workmenfrom Ban Na Di, whose skill in excavation and good humor did so much for the project. The research wassupported by National Science Foundation Grant GS-1877, with supplemental aid to field expenses fromNational Institutes of Health Grant GM-15198 (Medicinal Plant Collection).

BAYARD: Non Nok Tha, Thailand 1431967b Southeast Asia and the West. S 157: 896-902.1968a Thailand. AP IX: 3~.1968b Early bronze in northeastern Thailand. CA IX: 59-62.1969 Reworking Southeast Asian prehistory. Paideuma XV: 125-139.

SOLHEIM, WILHELM G. II, AND CHEsn:R F. GoRMAN

1966 Archaeological salvage program: Northeastern Thailand, first season.JSS LIV: 111-181.SOLHEIM, WILHELM G. II, R. H. PARKER, AND DONN T. BAYARD

1966 Preliminary reports on excavations at Ban Nadi, Ban Sao Lao, Pimai No.1. Honolulu: SocialScience Research Institute, University of Hawaii.

S¢RENSEN, PER1967a Archaeological excavations in Thailand. Volume II: Ban-Kao. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.1967b The neolithic cultures of Thailand (and North Malaya) and their Lungshanoid relationship.

Paper presented at symposium: Early Chinese Art and Its Possible Influence in the PacificBasin. 23 August 1967, New York City.

THOMPSON, F. C.1958 The early metallurgy of copper and bronze. M LVIII: 1-7.

VAN lIEEKEREN, H. R., AND EIGIL KNuTH

1967 Archaeological excavations in Thailand. Volume I: Sai-yok. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.WATSON, WILLIAM

1968 The Thai-British Archaeological Expedition. A XLII: 302-306.WATSON, WILLIAM, and HELMuT H. E. LOOFS

1967 The Thai-British Archaeological Expedition: a preliminary report on the work of the first season1965-1966. JSS LV: 237-272.